Andrew W. Jurs


In a recent article on science and the law, Susan Haack suggested that “we could learn something from the experiences of other nations that are equally technologically advanced, but have different . . . legal arrangements.” Her suggestion is both appropriate and timely, as the evidence mounts on the problems with the current judicial management of complex science.

This Article starts with a simple, related premise, that the proper balance of legal process and scientific expertise is not a uniquely American problem. If this is true, then we should, as Haack suggests, seek inspiration for reform in the varying methodologies of other nations. After beginning with a critical examination of the U.S. expert witness system, this Article discusses the handling of expert witnesses in multiple common law nations (Canada and the United Kingdom) and in multiple civil law nations (Germany and Japan). After examining those systems, this Article makes recommendations as to which methodologies, currently in use and tested in those nations, offer the most promise in fixing the weaknesses exposed in our system.

By reviewing the weaknesses in Daubert assessment of complex expert testimony, how other nations handle similar evidence, and how certain discrete areas of foreign law could address the weaknesses identified in the U.S. approach, this Article offers reform alternatives to assist judges in balancing the need for accuracy and reliability of the science presented in court with the need to maintain our traditions of legal process.

Included in

Law Commons